Reviewed in the United States on April 10, 2014
Preliminaries
A gimbal mount can offer substantial advantages over a conventional tripod head by placing the camera + lens assembly such that the axis of support passes through the center of mass of the assembly, basically eliminating the annoyances of gravity. Judging from the advertisements, gimbal mounts seem to be primarily offered for use with long focal length, heavy lenses where speed of operation is very important. For such use, some simplifications in design can be made, in particular by assuming that the mounting will be by using a rotating collar on the lens instead of mounting directly to the camera body itself.
I sought a gimbal head for different purposes: I rarely use long lenses, but I want to be able to move the cameras in different directions freely without having to fight gravity because unbalanced loads. That way the camera will stay put if I let go of it or I do not sufficiently tighten the locks on the tripod movements. My primary use is for Rolleiflex SL66 and Leica M cameras (yes, film) in tightly controlled circumstances, such as fine art photography.
Keep in mind that a simple gimbal head has only two axes of adjustment (altitude and azimuth in the parlance of astronomy or pitch and yaw in the parlance of flight). There is no roll adjustment. Unless the camera is used with a lens having a rotating mounting ring, the gimbal mount does not allow changing the image format from horizontal (landscape) to vertical (portrait). Of course the square format 6x6 Rollei does not need that change. In principle there are ways using additional equipment to switch the Leica between horizontal and vertical formats. In any case, there is no fine tuning of roll to get verticals or horizontals accurately aligned, and this is a serious headache inherent in the fundamental idea of the two-axis gimbal. However, this fact is a conscious choice, and I would not hold it against the performance of a simple gimbal mount, so long as it can be aligned once in a setup and then forgotten.
Summary of results
STRENGTHS:
* The gimbal action in principle serves my need for the Rollei, albeit with limitations.
* The GH1 is substantially less expensive than some of the big name products.
WEAKNESSES:
* The movements are not smooth.
* Tightening the gimbal (altitude adjustment) lock causes the camera to move (CCW roll) about 1 degree.
* Tightening the azimuth adjustment lock causes the camera to move (yaw to the left) about 1 degree.
* The gimbal is too small to hold many cameras using the tripod screw in the base of the body.
* The two-axis design assumes the camera + lens assembly will have a tripod collar on the lens to change image orientation. This is not the fault of the GH1 itself, but rather the general two-axis gimbal geometry.
* Specifically, the GH1 is not suitable for use with the Leica (without Visoflex) without resort to some extreme workarounds that are not very practical.
QUALITY CONTROL / DESIGN:
There are some serious quality control and/or fit problems with the GH1, and there is no good excuse for any of them. Some can be fixed by the user, some have workarounds, and others will just remain.
* As delivered, the movements were rough, and barely tolerable. However, spraying some WD-40 into the moving parts made a large improvement, making the GH1 serviceable.
* A major irritation is that the fit of the gimbal (altitude adjustment) is sloppy, and tightening the lock causes the camera to move (roll) by about 1 degree. This roll error is not serious if one is only following wild life, but it is not tolerable in careful composition.
* Unless there is a rotating lens mounting collar, there is no solution to the sloppy fit of the gimbal; it is a design flaw. The only workaround is to just barely loosen the lock enough to allow movement; even moderate friction reduces but does not eliminate the play. Correcting a roll is particularly clumsy, because there is no adjustment for that in the head, unlike a normal tripod head. One must mess with the tripod itself, by changing the length of the legs or, if available, adjusting the central leveling of tripod post.
* A major irritation is that tightening the azimuth adjustment lock causes the camera to yaw about 1 degree towards the left. As with the altitude problem described above, this is not tolerable for precise composition, but perhaps not a problem for many kinds of "field work." There is no reasonable workaround to prevent the problem, apart from anticipating what will happen.
* If the azimuth lock is loosened and tightened again without moving the camera, the no new yaw takes place. Tightening the lock very lightly to just touch, one can feel flat spots on the bushing. Wonder if the flat spots are the result of previously tightening the lock?
* The finger-loop on the screw used for the "Arca-Swiss-like" plate to hold the camera is too loose, causing difficulty in mounting the plate onto the head, because the finger-loop falls down and gets in the way. This is sloppy and could be dangerous, because it can be hard to see if the plate is really secure. The simplest solution is to just remove and discard the loop and use a coin in the slot provided in the screw.
SPECIFIC:
* As delivered, the GH1 would not serve my needs, because the Rollei is much too large to fit into the limited space available. It needs at least 25 mm more space, or ideally 30 mm for ease of use. It is not really necessary, but with a moderate additional investment in a second sliding plate mounted crosswise, providing more working space, Rolleis can be nicely accommodated.
* Leicas will not fit if one wants to use the tripod body mount on grip centered at the lens and they need about 10 mm more space (or quite a bit more with an L bracket). In principle, the tripod mount on the bottom of the camera can be used without the grip, but use is clumsy as there is not much room for a hand to cock the shutter.
* Adding an L bracket in principle will allow vertical format for the Leica without the Visoflex. However, in practice that became very clumsy indeed. Doing that would be an act of desperation.
* M Leicas can be used with a Visoflex for long lenses, using the tripod mount on the bottom of the Visoflex. The Visoflex also offers the ability to rotate the body by 90 degrees, but there is no fine adjustment. This is the only practical use of M Leicas with the GH1.
Discussion
As others have observed, a squirt of WD-40 into the moving parts made a great improvement in the smoothness of the motion. A word of caution, however: This probably will not be a long term solution, as the WD-40 will eventually dry out. Hopefully, a repeated application will rejuvenate the head.
For those who want to do some work on their own:
* The right answer to the sticky motion is to do what some other reviewers did: Disassemble the device, clean, and put in new, better lubricant. I do not have the patience for such a project at this time. "Simple" things like this have a habit turning into much bigger projects as one starts digging into them, and I was not going to try that now.
* There was a posting about carefully cutting the rubber at the altitude locking knob. Don't bother cutting. The rubber can be slid on the shaft by pushing with a blade such as a putty knife.
* There were postings about the compasses on the knobs. This must be some kind of inside joke. My GH1 only has one compass, but it also has one level. Neither one can possibly work because they do not face up. However, even if the compass is held level, the compass does not function. It will point in all sorts of directions unrelated to magnetic north. There is a magnet under the dial, but I suspect that there is a steel bolt directly below the dial, and the magnet is attracted to the bolt holding the compass off kilter in its bearing so that it cannot work. My guess that these appendages are really just a cap to cover a hole where a bolt is located, and someone got a "buy" on these things and put them to other use.
Just looking at the photo of the Opteka head, I was not surprised that the Rollei would not fit, but I was surprised that the Leica would not fit. The solution is easy, with the investment in another sliding quick-release mount fitted cross-wise, moving the camera a little way from the vertical support arm. It happened that I already had a Manfrotto 577 base plus a Manfrotto 501PL plate. This combination works, but the Rollei is still a little cramped. A better solution is the Manfrotto 501Plong plate that offers more offset. The Manfrotto L Bracket Q5 fits the 577 base, allowing vertical format use of the Leica, but in reality, it is very clumsy.
If one must buy both the quick release and the long plate, one will make an additional investment that is comparable to the Opteka gimbal alone. The more expensive Wimberley WH-200 gimbal mount is quite a bit larger, and it would probably obviate the need for this offset trick needed for the Rollei. Even with the additional investment in the Opteka, the Wimberley is still more expensive, but it probably does not have the design/quality problems listed above. I have not access to a Wimberley gimbal to verify this, however.
Bottom Line:
Would I recommend it? The answer is a qualified yes, depending upon the intended uses.
* The GH1 is designed to be used with a rotating lens mount, not a camera body mount. Under some conditions such as a square format camera, a workaround for a body mount is possible. Changing the body orientation without a rotating mount will be clumsy at best.
* Keep in mind the limitations inherent in a two-axis gimbal mount, and precise composition (e.g. truly level horizons) may be tedious.
* There are some really annoying lapses in quality control and design for which there is no excuse. Avoiding these problems should have had a negligible effect on cost of construction. One can probably learn to live with these lapses.
